Letters: Constitutional double standard?

Now that Erwin Chemerinsky has given us his opinion on how government officials cannot choose to disobey laws that they find objectionable [“No government official above the law,” Opinion, Sept. 10] can I also assume that he finds the actions of San Francisco’s sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi and his not upholding the federal immigration laws equally wrong? Religious outlaw and object of left-wing scorn, Kim Davis’ actions merely held up, for the shortest of time, marriage certificates of same-sex couples and she even went to jail for it. Sheriff Mirkarimi’s failure to uphold federal immigration law due to the city of San Francisco being a “sanctuary city,” by contrast, resulted in the murder of Kathryn Steinle by an illegal immigrant with five felonies on his record. Yet the silence is deafening from the leftist professor on this government official not obeying laws that he picks and chooses. Can you say, “double standard”?

Steve Fleming

Chino Hills

• • •

Erwin Chemerinsky brings up a very interesting point when he compares Ms. Davis’ refusal to grant gay marriage licenses to the decisions by Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris not to defend Proposition 8. In doing so, he insinuates that our elite political class (Brown and Harris) have a higher moral and constitutional standing than lower-level elected officials and, as such, can selectively enforce laws at will through applying their personal filters to laws on the books. We have become a much more open society and are making good progress on changing laws through due process that previously condoned racism, sexism and inequality, so the belief or argument that discriminatory laws still exist is tenuous at best. Gay marriage is a law and, as such, should be upheld and supported unless changed through due process. By the way, sanctuary cities are also a flagrant violation of federal immigration law, however, I have not seen officials being held in contempt of court for these actions. If we become a nation of opinions instead of laws, it is not hard to believe that enforcement of just about anything can be challenged.

Erik Wendehost

San Clemente

• • •

Erwin Chemerinsky gets it mostly right in his article. Mere mortals cannot ignore the law, but this does not apply if you are at a high enough level.

President Lincoln ignored the Dred Scott decision and that turned out to be the right thing to do. The Supreme Court obviously over-reached its authority. Of course, it was not as obvious at the time. Lincoln did not go to jail. Obama has decided to not enforce our immigration laws. Are they unjust laws? Then they should be changed, not ignored. In the meantime, he is not going to jail. Obama’s decision is not even a deeply held religious conviction, just his personal opinion (and a popular vote attractor for his party).

Kim Davis did not have to go to jail except for the fact the judge, even by Chemerinsky’s account, felt a need to punish her – set an example. He could have offered bail, but then she would have been bailed out immediately. Does the Supreme Court really have the authority to redefine marriage or allow abortions? Stay tuned, there are more battles to be fought on these issues.

Mike Noggle

Irvine

• • •

As we are now learning, all the other county clerks in Ms. Davis’ office can issue gay marriage licenses without Ms. Davis’ signature after all. So why was she put in jail for contempt in the first place? It appears the county authorities and the judge knew there was a work-around, but opted to make an example of this woman by putting her in jail instead. This sure looks and sounds like a “war on women” to me. And apparently religious liberty does not count here either.

So, let me get this straight, Obama can pick and choose which laws he will abide by, but a Democratic elected clerk with religious convictions exercising her First Amendment rights, cannot? There is something wrong with that picture for sure.

S. Raab

Laguna Hills

• • •

On a daily basis, people choose to disobey laws of all sorts, for example, illegally using a handicap parking space or speeding. They do this because they find it harder, or inconvenient to follow the law. In the latter case, they put others at risk for injury, and possibly death. Our current administrations in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., also choose to ignore or disobey many laws – sanctuary city and immigration come to mind. As we have recently seen, this can have deadly consequences. So it hardly seems a big deal that Kim Davis is so newsworthy. She at least, at great personal cost, is attempting to obey a “higher authority.” I agree that she has a right to believe as she chooses, but she has no right to her job if she refuses to carry out her duties as present law requires. If she is unable to do this, she can resign and find a job that does not violate her beliefs.

My question is: Why are we not demanding all sworn agents of our governments be held to this standard? If the law exists and you are sworn to uphold it, either do that, or resign and find work you can do.

If you don’t believe a law is just, work to change the law through the constitutional process.

George F. Bullman

Costa Mesa

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.